Tweet
Boys and girls Roth is back in. Your dream has come true so beg, borrow, or steal the money to see Van Fuckin Halen this summer. Oh and go see Rush too. The drummer has fucked up wrists or some damn thing like that and he's not wanting to tour no more. Who gives a fuck. He runs and hides from the fans anyways but hey he's a good drummer and this is the last time to see him live even if he doesn't give a ratt's ass about you. Go see this shit because whoopie we's all going to die from global warming, civil unrest, bad farts, McDonald's, or GMO food.
-
-
Yea! Fuck Grocery Stores....fuck even the name is some what nameless French. Dave's Bitch has a much better distribution system. Let's read your solution to this 4000 yr old system! Fuck...music paid for street musicians or bands...bah HUMBUG!
Me...for me own uneducated self...love Grocery Stores. Better than picking beans in Juan's Fields just to find my wife had not killed the Rabbit's necessary for the stew! I should say FUCK GROCERY STORES and FUCK PAYING MUSICIANS FOR THEIR MUSIC. But hey...I am uneducated about these systems.
Fear and the Three-Day Food Supply
One of the scary factoids in circulation these days is the revelation that grocery stores hold only a three- or four-day supply of food. People wield this statistic to argue that our food system is appallingly insecure and in grave danger of failure. We’re only a few days from starvation, goes the frightening story, and we’re liable one day to find our supermarket shelves empty and the populace in panic.
To accept this forecast uncritically, though, means ignoring how complex systems work. We can scare ourselves by selectively focusing on a small piece of a larger picture and behaving as if that tiny bit were the whole story. It’s a natural tendency: Any organism interested in surviving needs to focus on what’s going wrong much more than what’s going right. But in this case, believing the tale of empty shelves may distract us from more urgent problems.
Storing large amounts of grains and other foods in cities is an ancient strategy, and it hasn’t protected against famine. Many European cities and walled towns kept grain supplies designed to carry them through hard times, yet, according to historian Fernand Braudel, famine remained a regular visitor. Continent-wide, famines that killed 10% or more of the population struck Europe 13 times in the 16th century, 11 times in the 17th, and 16 times in the 18th century. Local famines were far more common, yet most towns had large granaries. With a little thought, we can see why storing food in public granaries isn’t an effective strategy. How much food would a city of 50,000 need to store to get through months of utter crop failure? The math is brutal: the town would be almost knee deep in grain. And, more urgently, during a food panic, how many pounds of grain being handed to you by the state would make you calm down? Five? Ten? That’s only a couple of day’s supply for a small family. During a food panic, I suspect the government would need to hand out 20 to 50 pounds of grain per family every few days to calm a frightened populace. And during a panic, even the largest food storages are emptied quickly. The enemy here is fear, not the food system. In my book, anyone shouting “Run to the stores and buy as much food as you can!” deserves a special place in hell.
Storing more than a few days supply of food within a city makes little sense for a number of reasons. It requires dedicated storage buildings in cities—where space is most expensive. We’d need security forces to protect the food, a bureaucracy to run the logistics, and all that food must be cycled in and out for freshness. Plus, imagine a half million or more hungry people all converging on central granaries expecting to be fed. The logistical problems are enormous: think FEMA or TSA, and you can see why it’s the wrong level to operate at. A much more sensible place for emergency food storage is at the household level. If you are worried about food shortages, get your own stash and store as much as makes you comfortable. In designing a solution to a problem, it’s critical to intervene at the proper level, and here, the household is a far more effective level than the state.
Another reason for not instituting centralized food warehouses is that food systems are based much more on flow than they are on storage, and they usually have been. Claiming that our strategy for food delivery is precarious is not thinking in terms of dynamic whole systems, in which flows are far greater than storage—though both are important. Imagine someone panicking because they suddenly realized that their yard’s soil only contains enough water for four days of plant growth. That may be true, but we know also that water is constantly flowing in—storage is only one bit of the picture. Moisture is being pulled upward through the soil, rain is likely before long, plus we have the water line from the street, household graywater, and all the other ways that the tiny bit of water on that land is being renewed continuously. Yes, it’s possible that all the water delivery systems could break down simultaneously, just as the whole food system could, but that entails large-scale network failures—the utterly perfect storm—that would likely send signals well in advance and affect much more than water or food.
If we don’t look at flows, and don’t think in terms of whole systems, we can make ourselves very scared about the complex systems surrounding us. I call this tendency “drawing the box too small.” If we draw a boundary at, say, the city limits of Chicago and measure how much food is available within it, we can get frightened at how little there is: a few days supply. But that’s not really Chicago’s whole food supply, is it? If we enlarge the boundary to, say, what can be delivered to the city within an hour’s drive, suddenly that food supply contains all the farms and gardens, warehouses, cold-storage units, processing plants, feedlots, ships anchored in Lake Michigan full of grain, distribution centers, rail depots, and other sources of food within a 50-mile radius. That’s a lot more than a four-day supply. Then, enlarge the box to a day’s drive and the food supply will last for weeks. And if we increase the box to include the entire nation or continent—which is still only a part of our food system—we now have an essentially infinite supply of food, renewed every growing season, since the US is still a net food producer.
What makes think that something as unnatural as city limits is the boundary of a city’s food supply? And what kind of catastrophe would limit a city to the food within it? Obviously, a local disaster such as a hurricane or earthquake could do this, but it also could destroy any food grown or stored there, or start a panic that depletes even the largest supply. (Or takes martial law to protect it and draconian rules to distribute it. I’d rather store my own.) Even Hurricane Katrina didn’t prevent food from reaching New Orleans before many people went hungry. Perhaps a rupture of the transportation system would do it. But what would cause this? Rapid destruction of large parts of the highway or rail system is unlikely except in war or national strike (and striking workers and their families need to eat, too). These networks are highly distributed and redundant: There are many routes to any city. A major and sudden fuel shortage might do it, but I suspect that we’d quickly see rationing and redistribution of fuel away from many non-food uses, since governments know that hungry people start revolts. And actual transportation of food only uses 4% of the total energy in the food system (Weber and Matthews, Env. Sci. Technology, 2008, 42: 3508), so a fuel shortage would have less effect on moving food into cities, and more on the production and processing of food, which is a slower process that would unwind over weeks and months, not days.
There’s a lot wrong with our food system, but its “just in time” nature is not one of the flaws. We need to ask why the idea of four days of food on grocery shelves scares us, and why it makes us believe we have a precarious food system. Cities have always drawn from the surrounding countryside for their food. Why is it hard to trust that the current food system will continue to deliver food into cities? I suspect that part of our fear is that the size and number of components of the food systems is so vast that we can’t easily grasp how it works or believe that something that complex can continue to function long. It’s like worrying that your circulatory system—with its billions of red blood cells, pulsing lung tissue, ornately branching veins and arteries, and complicated gas exchange network—will fail and you won’t be able to get oxygen into your blood. It makes me dizzy just to think about it. Fortunately, complex adaptive systems such as our bodies and our food supply continue to function without our conscious control; they are highly networked and on many levels.
The long-term storage for our food supply is on the land, widely distributed, where it belongs. The food system has many tiers, and the “food stored in cities” level is a minor component. The system encompasses many levels of intermediate food storage components such as farms, cooperative grain-storage towers, processing plants, warehouses, shipping in transit, and distribution centers, each holding or supplying a significant percentage of our food supply and operating over a timeframe of weeks and months. It is a system in which flow makes up more of the capacity than storage. With a perishable good such as food, that’s as it should be. Having more than a few day’s supply of food stored at the end of the chain, in cities, would be a misallocation of resources away from the sources that generate the food and direct its constant stream toward the user. It’s smart for residents to store emergency food in their home, in whatever quantity makes them feel safe. But an expensive revamping of our food system to build collective infrastructure for urban food storage makes little sense when flow is the key element of any food system.
Our food system has many flaws. We need more locally grown food. The current system is far too dependent on fossil fuels, is concentrated in too few seed varieties and a handful of corporations, is subsidized toward unhealthy and unwise products, and wastes prodigious quantities of water and nutrients. But an absence of giant state-run granaries is not one of its failings. In a complex system, flows are at least as important as storages, and is the appropriate place to focus. A secure food system stems far more from the flow of food and the existence of many levels of nearby and faraway storages than from the amount of food on grocery shelves. To claim that our just-in-time system is precarious is drawing the box far too small, and ignores the flow-based nature of the complex, constantly readjusting systems that we depend on.
*
Last edited by SunisinuS; 05-01-2015, 05:34 AM. Reason: *I like Grocery Stores. Better than begging for food from these fucks.Can't Control your Future. Can't Control your Friends. The women start to hike their skirts up. I didn't have a clue. That is when I kinda learned how to smile a lot. One Two Three Fouir fun ter thehr fuur.Comment
-
God shoot me. Some of you are thinking way too hard and taking this too seriously. More serious than =VH= ever wanted.
Comment
-
I think it's an issue of semantics. Now seeing who he is describing, I'd say ungrateful is the wrong word. But I know where he's coming from.
In the grand scheme of things, the band is not moving forward in the manner in which many would like, but that has always been the case. Conditioning yourself to being disappointed and taking what they give isn't a new thing. It's been that way since the wheels came off in '84. With Van Halen, you're choice is to cherry pick what you like most about them and take the rest for what it is. Or tell'em to fuck off. The choice is ours. Personally and quite sadly, my interest in the future of this band is fading fast. Not thrilled to say that, but I am glad that people are still able to enjoy them.Comment
-
I thought you were talking about VH, not Dave?
What do you mean, Dave never conformed to what anyone else deemed acceptable? After Your Filthy Little Mouth Dave has done nothing but conform.
But let me state this very clearly - I would buy a new Dave solo album in a heartbeat. You know why? Because I don't expect much from Dave at this point.
The thing with VH, though, is an entirely different matter. They have enough material throughout the decades to put out something that's actually GOOD. Instead, they release a half-assed live album & fanboys like you shower them with praise, like they deserve to be worshipped just for farting.
Let me state this even more clearly - fanboys are more responsible for their idols falling from grace than the naysayers. Again, with VH one or the other doesn't matter one bit, & the reason I went after you like I did was simply for your retarded fanboyness, which is why I hardly mentioned VH or Dave in my post.
I am SICK of having fanboys ruining things I like by lapping up every dump, allowing their gods to release broken, half-finished messes & rewarding the for it.
It's OUR money - do yourself & everyone a favour & DEMAND THE FUCKING BEST.
Cheers!
Comment
-
Nah, I don't give a flying fuck about VH. My frothing rant was all about the fanboyism in Fraroc's post. THAT is what pisses me off.
In other words, it was a matter of principle. He could be talking about Kiss, Spongebob or Pamela Anderson, it doesn't matter one bit. Fanboys are a cancer.
THEY PISS ME OFF! AND WHEN I GET PISSED OFF, I GET SAD! BECAUSE I AM NOT LAUGHING!
Cheers!
Comment
-
Bad farts are lethal. A friend of mine told me the story of how, when he farted one morning under the sheets, he had to lay so very, very still. When his wife woke up, first he told her not to move. Then he instructed her to veeeeeery carefully, gently slide out from under the sheets & open all the windows.
I heard other stories about his farts. I believed this one.
Cheers!
Comment
-
As much as I agree with your points too, (ultimumately, everyone's right to an extent) I've spent the bulk of my life demanding the best and I'm telling ya, it's just not in them, especially now. Their legacy through our eyes is of no concern to them. I'm including Dave in this. It's just not important to them. They have never been particularly fan friendly. Now, the friendliness comes in the form of an Instagram video filmed by the son of a guy who could take or leave all of this.
Demanding is a waste of time and energy. It's either hope for the best or look for enjoyment elsewhere.Comment
-
Will you... goddammit! FUCK!
This is NOT about Van fucking Halen! This is about the rampant problem of fanboyism. I'm NOT talking about Van Halen - I don't give a flying fuck about them.
But I do agree with you about Dave. That's why I said I'd buy a new solo album no questions asked. At this point, I don't expect anything out of the guy, so whatever comes along, it's a bonus.
But ALL MY RANTS in this thread were triggered by Fraroc's fanboyism & THAT is what I'm talkin' about, my nigga.
FUCK Van Halen & the pint-sized dog they rode in on.
Cheers!
Comment
-
Understood.
Comment
-
Surely it's ok to have a few fans on a forum dedicated to the guy?Will you... goddammit! FUCK!
This is NOT about Van fucking Halen! This is about the rampant problem of fanboyism. I'm NOT talking about Van Halen - I don't give a flying fuck about them.
But I do agree with you about Dave. That's why I said I'd buy a new solo album no questions asked. At this point, I don't expect anything out of the guy, so whatever comes along, it's a bonus.
But ALL MY RANTS in this thread were triggered by Fraroc's fanboyism & THAT is what I'm talkin' about, my nigga.
FUCK Van Halen & the pint-sized dog they rode in on.
Cheers!Comment
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! !!!
I feel like motherfuckin' Charlie Brown with each & every one of you fuckers playing Lucy.
My rants are NOT about Van Halen. They're certainly not about Dave, because what triggered my amazingly stupid rage was a demonstration of fanboyism about Van Halen. NOT Dave. That jittery, spastic motherfucker has absolutely nothing to do with my embarrassing lack of self-control.
Ok, let's all calm down & by all I mean me & start over.
Primo, fanboy=/=fan. For all you retarded motherfuckers out there, that means they are NOT the same. All fanboys are fans, but not all fans are fanboys.
Secundo, although what caused me to go on a rampage was fanboyism about Van Halen, Van Halen is NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fanboyism itself.
Terzio, at this point you assholes have got to be winding me up on purpose & I keep biting. Fuck my life.
Cheers!
Comment
Comment